[Socratic]

...the generally acceptable underlying assumptions which I made, can you show that I did not use deductive reasoning?

You used deductive reasoning quite well, but I was pointing out your "generally acceptable underlying assumptions" may be mistaken for FACTS when they are merely generally acceptable underlying assumptions.

Would you be calling a Socratic, a Sophist? Tread lightly young man.

[webboy45]

It’s either magic or ID. Some scientists seem to prefer magic over the concept that there is intelligence greater than them.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It is true that generally accepted facts can sometimes be misleading (which is why I pointed out the "barking dog" as an example of inductive reasoning). However, we do the best we can with what we have. Sometimes we don't have enough information and don't know it. Thing is, my example of deduction is pretty solid, because we know all the relevant information. Deduction is used quit often in science and math.

The point of this entire exercise is to show the logical basis of the anti-IDers vs IDers (note that I didn't say anything about evolution. The debate is between those who say ID is suitable for scientific discussion and those who oppose this worldview).

A hint. Neither side can support their positions through deductive analysis. I just threw that in there because those who are three exclamation point posters (evolutionists!!! and IDers!!!) have only two options. Either they must prove their point through the use of deduction, or they are involved in a faith-based belief system.

So, anyone who says that ID is false or has no scientific validity or that ID is absolutely true must back themselves through the use of deduction or risk being tagged as religious cults.

OTOH, anyone who is not so dogmatic is free to use deduction, induction and Occam's razor to their heart's content to make their points.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Would you be calling a Socratic, a Sophist?

Socrates himself was called a Sophist in his day.